"Benjamin was the oldest animal on the farm, and the worst tempered. He seldom talked, and when he did, it was usually to make some cynical remark—for instance, he would say that God had given him a tail to keep the flies off, but that he would sooner have had no tail and no flies." - Animal Farm

Less respectable is the rhetoric in his House debate speech before the health care vote, that the reform bill is paternalistic, threatens freedom, makes people more dependent on government. At no point did he discuss the practical realities this bill is addressing: millions are uninsured, often due to outrageous costs and cruel policies that exclude the people who need insurance the most. This bill will solve those problems, albeit imperfectly. Yet all that Ryan can focus on is abstract notions of “freedom.” Freedom of what? To what? To choose whether or not to have insurance? The uninsured will end up being paid for by the rest of us when something goes wrong and they need emergency care anyway, so why not bring them into the system and in one swoop spread the costs around and lower them by allowing us to deal with illnesses before they become more dangerous and expensive?

A good faith disagreement between liberals and conservatives is said to be a difference in approach. We all agree there’s a problem, we just differ in the methods to remedy them. Ryan says, essentially, that this legislation is a solution in search of a problem. And that’s simply not true. As Pelosi said: “The status quo does not work for enough people.” Liberal and conservative ideas are supposed to be a means to an end—presumably, human welfare and happiness. Ryan and the Republicans, by all appearances, have made conservative ideas an end unto themselves, disconnected from all real-world consequence.

(As I wrote this earlier tonight, I watched Ezra Klein make virtually the same point on MSNBC, in about 30 seconds. That’s why he gets paid to do this, I suppose.)